#3637: ./configure doesn't understand Gentoo's build/host/target
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
  Reporter:  kolmodin             |          Owner:  igloo           
      Type:  merge                |         Status:  closed          
  Priority:  high                 |      Milestone:  6.12.2          
 Component:  Build System         |        Version:  6.12.1 RC1      
Resolution:  fixed                |       Keywords:  regression      
Difficulty:  Unknown              |             Os:  Unknown/Multiple
  Testcase:                       |   Architecture:  Unknown/Multiple
   Failure:  Building GHC failed  |          Patch:  0               
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Changes (by mike3050):

  * patch:  => 0


Comment:

 Replying to [comment:4 asuffield]:
 > It's not clear what configure is trying to do with the
 --{host,build,target} arguments here. GNU-style configure scripts are
 supposed to accept GNU-format configuration triples (as used by
 config.{sub,guess}) and direct the configure script to set up for a
 particular mode of cross-compilation. The vendor build scripts pass these
 arguments because their own "cross compile the distribution" automation
 knows more about what's going on. There is a [http://zolpo.com/auto-
 insurance/ auto insurance quote] cluster of bugs in configure.ac that get
 this all wrong.
 >
 > Option 1 is "reimplement config.sub", which is wrong unless you're
 trying to reinvent autoconf. Options 2 and 3 are essentially the same
 here, both being "we shall not support GNU-style cross compiling", which
 is probably also wrong.
 >
 > The cross-compile setup code in configure is currently a mess; the
 autodetection is broken. From eyeballing it, I doubt it works at all. To
 move forward:
 >
 >  * Are there non-obsolete reasons why configure is this way?
 >  * Is ghc somehow different from other compilers with regard to cross-
 compilation?
 >  * Was the 6.10 configure logic anything more than legacy gunk to work
 around bugs in autoconf versions from 10 years ago, which are no longer
 relevant?
 >  * Is there any reason why the whole lot shouldn't be thrown out in
 favour of the normal autoconf handling?
 >
 > If the answer to all of those is 'no', the solution is trivial.
 Otherwise, the answers should prove illuminating in how to proceed.
 Thank you,really work.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/3637#comment:10>
GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/>
The Glasgow Haskell Compiler
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-bugs

Reply via email to